Summary
dismissing petition because it was "not limited to allegations that the hospital has failed to comply with its by-laws but alleges matters properly falling within the scope of administrative review" by PHC
Summary of this case from Mahmud v. Bon Secours Charity Health SystemOpinion
July 9, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner sought to prohibit the respondent hospital from terminating his admitting privileges. However, he has failed to exhaust the administrative remedies afforded to him. Public Health Law § 2801-b was enacted to mitigate the harsh results of the common-law rule whereby the "physician's continued professional association with a private hospital was within the unfettered discretion of the hospital's administrators" (Guibor v. Manhattan Eye, Ear Throat Hosp., 46 N.Y.2d 736, 737; see also, Fried v. Straussman, 41 N.Y.2d 376, 380; Matter of Fritz v Huntington Hosp., 39 N.Y.2d 339, 348). Public Health Law § 2801-b (2) sets forth the appropriate procedural framework whereby an aggrieved physician may invoke the jurisdiction of the Public Health Council when the governing body of a hospital terminates a physician's privileges "without stating the reasons therefor, or if the reasons stated are unrelated to standards of patient care, patient welfare, the objectives of the institution or the character or competency of the applicant" (Public Health Law § 2801-b). The petitioner's challenge to the termination of his privileges is not limited to allegations that the hospital has failed to comply with its bylaws but alleges matters properly falling within the scope of administrative review envisioned in Public Health Law § 2801-b (cf., Matter of Murphy v. St. Agnes Hosp., 107 A.D.2d 685, 689; Chalasani v. Neuman, 97 A.D.2d 806, revd on other grounds 64 N.Y.2d 879). As such, the petitioner was "obligated to present his claim of an improper practice, in the first instance, to the administrative body charged with the protection of these statutory rights" (Guibor v. Manhattan Eye, Ear Throat Hosp., supra, at 738). Eiber, J.P., Sullivan, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.